Leicester Secularist Blog

News and views from Secular Society and its members, with comments on other events of wider interest to secularists. Views expressed here are those of the authors, and are not necessarily endorsed by the society unless this is expressly stated. We also have a quarterly (almost) journal - the Leicester Secularist.

01 November 2018

Proposed new Sikh School - Letter from Anthony Matthew

Dear Editor,

It is not surprising a group of Sikh parents wish to see a large sum of public money spent on a school primarily for their children. With the shortage of school places, most parents are likely to be keen on new provision which favours them especially.

Nor is it surprising that Keith Vaz MP should support a proposal that could win him a block of votes at the next election. (First Sikh secondary school bid, 17th September) The effect though of a school primarily for the children of Sikh parents is to shelter them to a large extent from contact with children from other backgrounds. That indeed is a virtue in the eyes of community leaders because no child is born a Sikh, nor a Catholic, a Moslem, an Anglican or any religious sect, there are only children born to parents in such sects or none.

A likely way for those leaders to maintain a flock of followers is to try to prevent their children deciding against joining their sect, either by moving to another or to none at all. These attempts to minimise integration are of no benefit to the community as a whole and there is no reason why they should be subsidised by public money. Of course the same arguments apply to existing and long-established Catholic and Church of England schools. Parents have no right to determine the beliefs of their children.

18 September 2018

A young Muslim claimed at a meeting that I attended that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was "racist". We exchanged emails and it turned out that "racism" was being equated with being "eurocentric". My response appears below:-

I don't think our disagreement is as profound as I thought it was
when you asserted the the UDHR is "racist". As with all discussions
words and differences in interpretations as to what they mean can
result in people talking at cross purposes. This is a problem I
encounter when discussing the existence of god(s). You need to
define what you mean by god(s) before you can discuss. For example
when Einstein refers to god, he means a Universe, which has no
intelligence and is totally indifferent to humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
To me racism is discrimination based a persons genetic make up that
they cannot change - "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another,
which often results in discrimination and prejudice
towards people based on their race or ethnicity." to quote wikipedia - although
many (possibly yourself included) have in recent years begun to use
the term to describe many other forms of discrimination.
As with equating secularism with atheism, in my opinion we devalue
the language and make it more difficult to discuss the issues
because of this conflation of meaning. If we mean cultural
imperialism, or tribalism or xenophobia or religious discrimination
then I'd suggest that these are the descriptions we should use.
I'd be the first to accept that "the modern doctrine of Human Rights
is Eurocentric and often inconsiderate of different perspectives".
But that does not make it racist (at least by my definition).

It is not even accepted by all European political philosophies. It
is after all based on asserting the rights of the individual and
limiting the powers of the group or state over the individual. Since
Humanism is based on on the notion of the rational,
autonomous human being, it finds the UDHR an attractive idea,
although as with all human constructs it can no doubt be improved
upon. Communism (which is also an atheist philosophy) does not
accept the idea that the individual should have any protection
from the collective will of the people and emphasises group/class
solidarity. Human rights are also unacceptable to absolute
monarchists, fascists and some people of religion who wish to see
their beliefs imposed across the entire population of the world.

I'd be the first to admit that if we introduce modern
medicines and technology to tribes that have managed to
survive in remote areas, we will undoubtedly destroy their
culture, which saddens me. However do we have a right to say that
certain populations should not have the benefits of modern
medicines/technology because this would change their way of life
and culture? If we did this surely we would be treating them like
animals in a zoo. Intervention may be a form of
imperialism/colonialism, but I'd have difficulty in not advocating
for it.

All cultures evolve over time and change is inevitable.
Unfortunately many people have a "golden conception" of a certain
period in their culture and want to maintain it regardless of
other changes in the world. I think Brexit is very much a symptom
of this.

I watched most of the YouTube video and would agree with much of
the article about Human Rights being Eurocentric, since most of
its history stems from the evolution of thought in Europe and in
particular the English speaking world. As with all human
constructs its history is an amalgam of many things. Some of the
ideas can be traced back to the Magna Carter and the Bill of
Rights. Others to religious ideas evolving from the Enlightenment.
Indeed I would maintain that a Leicestershire man, George Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox
, who founded the Society of Friends (the Quakers) can claim some
credit (or blame :-) ). As with many other religious figures he
had a revelation on Pendle Hill http://www.strecorsoc.org/gfox/ch06.html
. His idea that god dwells in everyone led to Quakers being
amongst the earliest advocates of equality and founders of the
anti-slavery movement. http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_21.html
.

"All four regional documents have some similarities but they
also have their differences. It is interesting to note that the
Draft Arab Charter and the African Charter of Human and Peoples
Rights are not all that radically different from the UDHR. If
one was to convincingly argue that the modern documents of human
rights were Eurocentric in character then I suspect one would
have expected a greater difference between the doctrines!"

Out of interest would you be happy for the UDHR to be declared
void and all the associated equality/anti discrimination
legislation in this country revoked?

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, worship and observance.

You might object to the right to
freedom to change religion or belief. However if you abolish this
you also end up abolishing the right to teach and practice your
religion. So the right to attempt to convert someone to your
religion would also be lost.

24 December 2017

Statement from Mo Abbas, President of Leicester Secular Society in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent assertion.

The
Archbishop of Canterbury’s claim “ for schools that are not of a
religious character, confidence in any personal sense of ultimate
values has diminished” is not only wrong, but also worrying.

The claim
that a moral system cannot be found without a religious framework
needs evidence to support it. One might even argue that practices and
beliefs based on religion ( at least some of them) can be considered
immoral.

One of the main functions of religion is the social function
where it helps members of that religion to develop social identity
and in-group solidarity and favouritism. However, what we know from
social psychology is that this process leads to a bias towards
members of other religions (out-group members) and even prejudice. In
certain circumstances, this could lead to violence.

Even if this was
not intended, faith schools contribute to the development of this
in-group / out-group bias. In that sense, it can contribute to
division within the community as a whole and the creation of
different moral systems which very often clash.

The answer to these
‘competing narratives’ that the Archbishop refers to in his
statement does not lie with faith schools. In fact, faith schools
make these competing narratives worse. The answer is to create a
value system where everybody , religious or non-religious, is treated
equally and fairly. This is the essence of secularism and this is why
Leicester Secular Society will always call for an inclusive education
system.

18 August 2016

Safe Space v Freedom of Expression

The Society had two
related talks in July. The first, where we once again welcomed Maryam
Namizie to the Hall on Sunday 17th July 2016, was entitled “Apostasy,
Blasphemy and Resistance to Islam” and provided an update on her
campaigning for Iran Solidarity, One Law for All and the Council of
Ex-Muslims of Britain. The second was given by Robbie Travers, a
20-year-old law student and commentator for the Gatestone Institute
(a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and
think tank, dedicated to educating the public about what the
mainstream media fails to report in promoting human rights and in
particular freedom of expression). Both speakers highlighted the
current threats to freedom of expression in the UK.

Maryam has been
experiencing limitations being placed on her freedom to set out her
point of view with the recent advocacy for “safe spaces” at
universities. She expressed concern that particularly in some
universities many “liberals” and “socialists” now seem to
regard anything that might be derogatory about religion, in
particular Islam, as unacceptable. She has been labelled as a “race
traitor” and “Islamaphobe”.

In December 2015 she
gave a talk about blasphemy at the Goldsmiths University in London,
sponsored by the university's Atheist, Secularist and Humanist
society. During her talk, members of the university's Islamic Society
caused a disruption by heckling, switching off her presentation and
behaving in an intimidatory way. In response to the incident, the
university's Feminist Society released a statement expressing support
for the Islamic Society, and condemning the Atheist, Secularist and
Humanist Society for inviting "known islamophobes" to
speak at the university.

Maryam emphasised
that while the beliefs of individuals must be protected, organised
religions were often ideologies that could result in fascist
societies if allowed to take power, and must be open to criticism and
mockery. She was adamant that religions must accept that apostasy and
blasphemy are permitted behaviours and, while they may not be
welcome, must be tolerated.

Both Maryam and
Robbie emphasised the need for Muslims to be able to challenge the
ultra orthodox conservative interpretations of Islam and that those
who supported progressive political views needed to support groups
such as One Law for All, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and
British Muslims for Secular Democracy. However both highlighted the
fact that people they might normally have regarded as “Progressive”
and of the “Left” more often supported Islamists, who advocate
death for apostasy, adultery and homosexuality, rather than oppose
them.

Robbie highlighted
that this was a problem particularly with the younger generation and
was particularly well demonstrated by the concept of “safe space”.
The term was originally introduced to indicate that a teacher,
educational institution or student body does not tolerate anti-LGBT
violence, harassment or hate speech, thereby creating a safe place
for all LGBT students. However this became extended to refer to the
protection of any individuals who felt marginalized on a university
campus from being exposed to views that they would find upsetting.
Such a rule makes robust free expression impossible.

Some students
involved in political discourse now refuse to listen to or engage
with people of opposing points of view on the basis that it violates
their entitlement to “safe space”. Some also argue that only LGBT
people can be regarded as qualified to discuss LGBT issues and only
“black” people are qualified to discuss racism etc. Robbie
believes that such ideas lead to “group think” and stereotyping.

Robbie put forward
the hypothesis that young people are rebelling against the equalities
and human rights agendas pursued by the post war generation. Instead
they are advocating rights for groups that they feel have been
discriminated against in the past. This means that not all groups
(and hence people) have the same rights. He highlighted the issue of
female genital mutilation (FGM). This was now being labelled as
female genital circumcision and regarded as a norm for some Islamic
groups. As such some of these “avant garde” groups maintain that
it should be regarded as acceptable. Hence one young lady, who had
suffered FGM and opposed the practice, was told to shut up and
branded a “race traitor” by a group of student “feminists”.

It was suggested
that the current student generation has grown up in an era when there
was no longer a folk memory of the horrors of the World Wars. Many
students no longer appreciate how essential it is to avoid
stereotyping and that everyone must be entitled to their human rights
as individuals, together with equality before the law. Robbie
suggested that the older generation, including our membership, needed
to try and engage with the younger generation through social media,
even if they felt uncomfortable with it, as advocates for liberty and
human rights.

11 July 2016

Kinky Sex, Education & Human Rights

John Pendal

John Pendal gave a very entertaining and thought-provoking talk on Sunday 10th July 2016.

John is a gay comedian and an advocate for sexual liberty. He grew up in a religious family that was part of a strict Baptist Church which could not accept that homosexuality was anything more than a life choice. When he declared that he was gay, but intended to remain celibate, he was still expelled from the Church.

He gradually moved into the Gay community and found he had a propensity for leather, becoming involved in that scene. He won the Mr Hoist title in 2003, the prize being that he was sponsored to enter the 25th annual International Mr Leather contest in Chicago in May 2003, which he also won. It turns out that the contest is about finding the person most able to act as an ambassador for those who like to indulge in leather. John took the year off work travelling to events full time from July 2003 to June 2004, covering 100,000 miles and visiting 28 cities in the US, Europe and Canada, while raising money for charities.

John emphasised that the sado/masochistic (S/M) scene was very much based on consent and he felt that this was an area that was not sufficiently covered in what most schools teach within sex education. He put great emphasis on the need for everyone to understand that consent is always provisional, can be revoked at any time and must always be respected. Many people (including just about all who produce pornography) seem to regard initial consent as sufficient. This is something we need to change.

The point was made that S/M sex is just a part of the spectrum of what, in the final analysis, is rather weird human behaviour. He pointed out that much of this behaviour either produces an endorphins rush (such as that experienced from strong physical exercise such as running, cycling or swimming) or an adrenalin rush caused by undertaking what are perceived as high risk behaviours, such as riding on a roller coaster or bungee jumping. Why do we regard slightly weird sex as being unacceptable while accepting running or bungee jumping as being perfectly normal? Why can indulging in sex outside the normal range of behaviours be considered a mental illness when other equally strange hobbies are not?

John also highlighted how the law discriminates against those who wish to indulge in unorthodox sex. In the early 1990's sixteen gay men were prosecuted for private, consensual S/M play under the "Offences Against the Person Act 1861" (R v. Brown). None had required medical treatment and all believed that they were innocent as they had consented throughout. However, the judge decided that "sexual pleasure" was not a good enough reason for people to be able to consent to an assault, and so he wouldn't allow consent as a defence. Consequently the men pleaded guilty and were sentenced to up to four and a half years in prison.

The police investigation was called "Operation Spanner" and a defence fund was set up and trustees appointed to what became the Spanner Trust. An appeal resulted in reduced sentences but the convictions were not overturned. The convictions were upheld by both the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights. The trust now has the task of trying to change the law.

Currently it is illegal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to engage in any activities for sexual pleasure which result in an injury other than "transient or trifling". Even a love-bite is technically illegal. This means that S/M players are still at risk of arrest and prosecution. It restricts S/M education (increasing the danger that people will injure themselves during play) while making it difficult for S/M players to get medical attention if there is a problem. It also enhances the prejudices against those in the S/M community, driving the scene underground and making it harder for essential safety information (such as the difference between S/M and abuse) to be disseminated widely. S/M activities can also be used against people in custody court cases, or lead to blackmail or the loss of jobs.

In addition, bad laws spread from country to country. The Spanner verdict has been quoted in trials in at least three other countries as an example of where a government can over-rule your right to consent. In America it was quoted during the Texas sodomy trial as evidence that it was acceptable for a government to stop people having the kind of sex they wanted - even if the sex was private, consensual and caused no harm.

Currently the law appears to be anomalous. In the court cases seen to date there have been three different types of verdicts:

For S/M play within a heterosexual married couple, only the male (active) partner was prosecuted and he was acquitted. The judge said that a man branding a woman with a knife was "acceptable behaviour within marriage".

For S/M play between an unmarried heterosexual couple, only the male (active) partner was prosecuted and he was found guilty.

For S/M play between gay men both the active and passive participants were prosecuted and ALL were found guilty. The passive players were prosecuted for "aiding and abetting an assault against themselves"!

John hopes that the Spanner Trust will be able to use the 1998 Human Rights Act to pursue a claim in the High Court that the Spanner decision (R v Brown) is contrary to the Human Rights Act, thereby forcing a change in the law. To do that they will need claimants (people willing to come forward and say they are at risk of prosecution) and money.

15 December 2015

Christianity under attack - Mercury Mailbox

The National Secular Society is making a deal of noise about another report, by the former judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, that is expected to recommend state schools should cease holding Christian assemblies so atheist children are not offended.

Other faiths will be allowed to continue to hold religious assemblies should they wish.

We Christians are pretty well hardened to the annual relentless calls from atheists and secular societies to curtail any and all religious content in public life.

However, to single out English Christians would be against all that is English, fair and just. That would turn us toward those dark days when Christian expression resulted in state punishments.

England has been a Christian nation since the late 7th century and has introduced Christ to so many countries that it would unthinkable we would even consider turning our backs on the world's largest faith.

If Christianity was driven out of all schools, public meetings, state and public ceremonies it would not result in a religion-free society, it would create a void for one of the other faiths to fill.

I cannot say all Christians have been good but one thing I am sure of is a future England without the moral guidance, ethical voice, advocacy for the powerless and sanctuary of peace and calm the Christian church provides would increase the probability our children being subjects on an island where materialism, self interest and moral bankruptcy was the norm.

I posted the following comment that unfortunately did not format well when uploaded to the Leicester Mercury website -

Stephen A Warden (SAW) said "The National Secular Society is making a deal of noise about another report, by the former judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, that is expected to recommend state schools should cease holding Christian assemblies so atheist children are not offended."

SAW "Other faiths will be allowed to continue to hold religious assemblies should they wish."

This is completely false. The actual recommendation on page 8 is:

"All pupils in state-funded schools should have a statutory entitlement to a curriculum about religion, philosophy and ethics that is relevant to today’s society, and the broad framework of such a curriculum should be nationally agreed. The legal requirement for schools to hold acts of collective worship should be repealed, and replaced by a requirement to hold inclusive times for reflection."

SAW said "We Christians are pretty well hardened to the annual relentless calls from atheists and secular societies to curtail any and all religious content in public life."

I would suggest that just about all atheists and secular societies are "for an inclusive and plural society free from religious privilege, prejudice and discrimination" - to quote the strapline of Leicester Secular Society. http://www.lsec.org.uk

Christians are welcome to proclaim the message at the clock tower or other public space. What they are not entitled to are privileges that are not granted to other organisations.

SAW: "If Christianity was driven out of all schools, public meetings, state and public ceremonies it would not result in a religion-free society, it would create a void for one of the other faiths to fill."

No one is suggesting a religion-free society. To quote from the report:

"In such a society all:

• feel a positive part of an ongoing national story – what it means to be British is not fixed and final, for people in the past understood the concept differently from the way it is seen today and all must be able to participate in shaping its meaning for the future

• are treated with equal respect and concern by the law, the state and public authorities

• know that their culture, religion and beliefs are embraced as part of a continuing process ofmutual enrichment, and that their contributions to the texture of the nation’s common life are valued

• are free to express and practise their beliefs, religious or otherwise, providing they do notconstrict the rights and freedoms of others"

SAW: "I cannot say all Christians have been good but one thing I am sure of is a future England without the moral guidance, ethical voice, advocacy for the powerless and sanctuary of peace and calm the Christian church provides would increase the probability our children being subjects on an island where materialism, self interest and moral bankruptcy was the norm."

20 November 2015

Open Letter to Keith Vaz regarding blasphemy law for the UK

Dear Mr Vaz,

I write to express deep disappointment at your support for blasphemy laws to be re-introduced to the UK.

I write this as an open letter to encourage clarity on the matter.

It is outrageous that someone, as senior within the Labour party as
yourself, would put forward the outdated, regressive, and oppressive
concept that faith and belief need legal protection. They do not. These
ideas must be subject to as rigorous questioning, criticism, ridicule
and offensive comment, as any other idea.

Just because someone
sincerely believes an idea does not give the person nor the idea any
special privilege in being immune from normal human interaction, even if
offensive criticism is offered. The line we draw, and it is a
reasonable one, is that we do not permit the incitement of hatred nor
violence. Everything else must remain within the law.

It is the
duty of everyone to be prepared to take offence on the chin rather than
demand special privilege to avoid facing unpleasant truths about their
cherished beliefs. To give religious ideas special protection would be
to give succour to the despicable regimes around the world who are happy
to murder blasphemers. Take a look at Pakistan where even to allege
that someone has blasphemed is enough to bring out the vigilante death
squads. Why would you want to take our legal system in that direction or
in the direction of Saudi Arabia where it is a terrorist offence to not
believe in Allah?

I sincerely hope that you will reconsider
your position and make it clear that a blasphemy law is not appropriate
for this liberal democracy of ours.